Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

White House Drafting Executive Order to Allow Indefinite Detention; Move Would Bypass Congress

By Dafna Linzer and Peter Finn, ProPublica. Posted June 30, 2009.


Such an order embraces claims by George W. Bush that certain people can be held without trial for long periods under the laws of war.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close Guantanamo, has drafted an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate suspected terrorists indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former President George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that bypassing Congress could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

After months of internal debate over how to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, White House officials are growing increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may prove impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the facility by the president's January 2010 deadline.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt did not directly respond to questions about an executive order but said the administration would address the cases of Guantanamo detainees in a manner "consistent with the national security interests of the United States and the interests of justice."

One administration official suggested the White House was already trying to build support for an executive order.

"Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order," the official said. Such an order can be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should either be prosecuted or released.

The Justice Department has declined comment on the prospects for a long-term detention system while internal reviews of Guantanamo detainees are underway. The reviews are expected to be completed by July 21.

In a May speech, President Obama broached the need for a system of long-term detention and suggested that it would include congressional and judicial oversight. "We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the Executive Branch decide alone," the president said.

Some of Obama's top legal advisers, along with a handful of influential Republican and Democratic lawmakers, have pushed for the creation of a "national security court" to supervise the incarceration of detainees deemed too dangerous to release but who cannot be charged or tried.

But the three senior government officials said the White House has turned away from that option, at least for now, because legislation establishing a special court would be both difficult to pass and likely to fracture Obama's own party. These officials, as well as others interviewed for this story, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal deliberations.

On the day Obama took office, 242 men were imprisoned at Guantanamo. In his May speech, the president outlined five strategies the administration would use to deal with them: criminal trials, revamped military tribunals, transfers to other countries, releases and continued detention.

Since the inauguration, 11 detainees have been released or transferred, one prisoner committed suicide and one was moved to New York to face terrorism charges in federal court.

Administration officials said the cases of about half of the remaining 229 detainees have been reviewed for prosecution or release. Two officials involved in a Justice Department review of possible prosecutions said the administration is strongly considering criminal charges in federal court for Khaled Sheik Mohammed and three other detainees accused of involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

The other half, the officials said, present the greatest difficulty because these detainees cannot be prosecuted either in federal court or military commissions. In many cases, the evidence against them is classified, has been provided by foreign intelligence services, or has been tainted by the Bush administration's use of harsh interrogation techniques.

Attorney General Eric Holder agreed with an assessment offered during congressional testimony this month that fewer than 25 percent of the detainees would be charged in criminal courts and that 50 others have been approved for transfer or release. One official said the administration is still hoping that as many as 70 Yemeni citizens will be moved, in stages, into a rehabilitation program in Saudi Arabia.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: guantanamo, barack obama, george w. bush, russ feingold, military commissions, eric holder, indefinite detention, ben labolt, national security court, khaled sheik mohammed

Dafna Linzer was a national security reporter for The Washington Post, covering intelligence and nonproliferation, from 2004 to 2008.

Peter Finn is the Moscow correspondent for The Washington Post.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Politics! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
This is a headliner
Posted by: weathered on Jun 30, 2009 2:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What would motivate the citizens of the United States to allow an Oval office to even consider such a concept - let alone allow it to by-pass Congress?

You can't have any motivation if you're not aware!

'if its not reported, it didn't happen'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Waynep
Posted by: waynep on Jul 1, 2009 3:41 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am, and have been even prior to his announcing his candidacy for president, a strong an active supporter. I do not agree with him on all matters, but trust that he is doing that which he believes is best for the country, and will give him the benefit of the doubt.
That is , when there is doubt. There is no doubt in this case. Indefinite detention without charges and a trial are blatantly anti-American, and do not serve the welfare of the people nor contribute to our national security. Do I understand the political difficulties of getting the congressional cooperation to do this in a manner consistent with the values of the United States. Of course. and I do believe in compromise in most situations. Continuing the current Bush policy is probably easier and more political feasible. However, I did not vote for Obama with the idea that this is a man that will take the easier route when the issue of right and wrong is as clearly defined as it is in this case. I implore our president to be the man that we believe him to be, and to do the right thing. He will be amazed at how many of us will stand at his back. We are just not as loud as the dittoheads!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Waynep Posted by: Beverlee C
A nation of laws...or of men?
Posted by: CaliJim on Jul 1, 2009 4:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we are a nation of laws that follow our Constitution, this is absolutely, totally unacceptable! Protecting our freedoms by ignoring and dishonoring our laws and Constitution is like the Vietnam era saying that "We had to destroy the village to save it." Idiocy.

If Obama is trying to lose the election in 2012, all he has to do is continue these blatantly unconstitutional actions. He'll lose my vote - as well as the votes of many of the other independents, I suspect. I didn't vote for "More Bush"...I voted for CHANGE - which is what he promised us. Bush promised to be a uniter and not a divider and not to get involved in foreign nation building, among other things. Are Obama's promises going to be the same as Bush's promises - simply campaign rhetoric to be ignored once in office?

Fair warning, Obama...if you talk the talk, you'd better walk the walk. If not, take a hike.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

justice is found wounded with inequity, and judges do not extract the dart
Posted by: yogrekha on Jul 1, 2009 4:48 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the members of the court are considered as wounded, where justice is found wounded with inequity, and judges do not extract the dart of inequity from justice or remove its blot and destroy inequity, in other words where the innocent are not respected and the criminal are not punished. A virtuous and just person should never enter a court and when he does so, he should speak the truth; he who holds his tongue on seeing injustice done, or speaks contrary to truth and justice, is the greatest sinner .Justice destroyed, destroys its destroyer; and justice preserved, preserves its preserver. Hence, never destroy justice , lest being destroyed, it should destroy thee. In this world justice or righteousness alone is man’s friend that goes with him after death. All other things or companions part on the destruction of the body and he is detached from all company. But the company of justice is never cut off. When injustice is done in the government court out of partiality, it is divided into four parts of which one is shared by the criminal or doer of injustice , the second by the witness, the third by the judges, and the fourth by the president king of an unjust court. Legal justice , with a humane mission, must update itself to legitimize progressive urges, discern the reality of social changes and design its delivery system, so as to obviate the dominance of the Proletariat by the accelerate people’s access to effective., limitative justice. The contemporary command of social justice, which is also the socio-economic demand of the common people, is that the prevalent forensic astigmatism shall be corrected by sloughing off archaic, arcane authoritarian procedures which often spawn the paradox of a wealth of abuses and a poverty of access vis-à-vis institutions of legal justice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Say bye-bye to the Bill of Rights. Say hello to "Minority Report."
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jul 1, 2009 10:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, Obama, after lofty pronouncements to the contrary and even loftier denouncements of his predecessor's flaunting of the law, will himself ignore the Constitution and carry on with Bush's illegal indefinite incarceration of SUSPECTED terrorists. This from a professor of Constitutional Law.

And this is due to the inconvenience that 90 or so of the Gitmo detainees cannot be charged but cannot be let go? Gee, I was under the impression that under the Bill of Rights, if the accused cannot be or will not be charged with a crime, then the accused MUST BE SET FREE! No equivocation, no if's, and's or but's, no B.S. It is spelled out quite clearly in the fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments (and the Constitution doesn't specify "citizens"; rather, it says "people," meaning all people under our government's control). Hasn't our "Constitutional Scholar" Obama read these amendments, or has he decided that he deserves the self-granted rights of the Unitary Executive (say: "dictatorial powers"), as did his weasily predecessor?

Far too much of the Bush administration is finding a happy home in Obama's court. I'm going to express my fear once again: that Obama is a Trojan Horse, sent in by conservative Powers That Be as a counterpoint in style to the heavy-handed (and inept) Bush cabal, in order to mollify the increasingly angry populace. Counterpoint in style only, that is, but successor to the direction of our government as set by Ronald Reagan and carried out by all presidents since, including Clinton. It pains me to say this, as I had such high hopes for a new beginning; but it is the only way I can explain Obama's backpeddling on so much of what we thought were his values since we were convinced (or duped) well enough to elect him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The laws of war do not apply
Posted by: greenknight on Jul 2, 2009 2:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no real war, the "war on terror" was a figure of speech - it's no more a legitimate war than the "war on poverty" was.

None of these prisoners is alleged to have been following legal orders while serving in the army of a sovereign nation when they were captured. If they had been, the U.S. could legally hold them as P.O.W.s for the duration of the conflict - but would be guilty of war crimes for torturing them. This is not the case, however - they are either criminals or not (those responsible for torturing them are definitely criminals). They must be either put on trial or released; our Constitution allows no third option.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The laws of war do not apply Posted by: etvaugha@mtu.edu
Only one problem here.
Posted by: etvaugha@mtu.edu on Jul 2, 2009 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush has not done anything illegal. All he's done is keep this country safe after 9/11. That's why the Obama administration hasn't taken any action against him. The only person who seems interested in taking action is Nancy Pelosi. But nobody takes her seriously anymore after the CIA debacle. The Alternet folks (and Pelosi) want terrorists and enemies of the U.S. to have the same rights as U.S. citizens, even if that terrorist holds vital information that could save lives if extracted, or poses an extreme threat to our nation. Obama, Bush, Cheney, Ted Kennedy, etc. are all on the same page. They know the logic of the Pelosi/Alternet crowd is flawed. So don't expect Obama to ever attempt to prosecute Bush, or close all prisions. Gitmo closing was a political move. There are still many more out there...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Only one problem here. Posted by: bryangalt
This article points out one blatant act by Obama, but there are many others....
Posted by: Prophit on Jul 2, 2009 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... how about these:

1. Harming soldiers intentionally with a deadly vaccine?

A shot from a syringe is leaving some U.S. servicemen and women on the brink of death.

2. Giving unprecedented power to the Fed after they presided over the greatest theft of our nations wealth in the history of the world.

Federal Reserve to gain power under plan

3. Here are a list of these violations by Obama's administration that were either not reported by our press or underreported. In other words "CENSORED".

Top 25 Censored Stories for 2009

4. Obama and his owner, Israel, is backing and funding the bogus Taliban enemy in Pakistan to justify his drones murdering hundreds of Pakistani children.

US and Israel and India-backing-baitullah-mehsud-reveals-close-aide

In case you don't like that source, how about this one:

Taliban defectors: US, Israel funding militants

AS Mossad says "By deception, we will conduct war". Happening in our own gov. We are their enemy as far as they are concerned as well. We are next.

Oh, and by the way, the "close aid" or whistleblower on that issue was killed shortly after he blew the whistle.

Mossad-Taliban whistleblower killed in Pakistan

There is more, but you add these all to the one about unlimited and permanent detention and you can see the writing on the wall.

Your a right wing nut, so what are you doing defending Obama???? Hmmmm, seems a bit strange, doesn't it???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Had enough yet?
Posted by: uncleeddie on Jul 7, 2009 1:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Watch "The Obama Deception" by Alex Jones. To the rest of you Kool-Aid drinkers maybe being classified yourself as a terrorist and then you yourself tortured might bring you to face the ugly truth about Obama.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement